Jacob Arminius was undoubtedly a pivotal figure in the evolution of Reformed theology. In fact, it is arguable that his very significance has, until recently, impeded attempts to give his work the attentive consideration that it deserves. Assessments of Arminius' theology have often been distorted by the scholar's own response to Arminius' qualifications of Reformed divinity. The range of primary works which have been referred to in drawing up a picture of Arminius' thought has frequently been limited. Arminius has often been studied through the lens of later Remonstrant thought, rather than placed in his own context. Against this background, Evert Dekker and Richard Muller have both produced corrective studies which engage sensitively with Arminius' own thought and consider it in its own intellectual environment. Keith Stanglin's compelling and tightly-argued book represents a welcome extension of their work. It is divided into three parts. In the first Stanglin considers the divinity faculty at Leiden during the first decade of the seventeenth century, introducing Arminius' closest colleagues, explaining how the faculty functioned and underlining that, throughout the years of controversy, collegiality was maintained there. This investigation enables Stanglin to demonstrate that a comparison between Arminius and his more straightforwardly Reformed colleagues at Leiden is a fruitful approach to Arminius' own thought. Stanglin then adopts this methodology for the remainder of his study, only leaving Leiden for occasional forays into England to engage, as Arminius himself did, with the thought of William Perkins. In the second and third parts of the book Stanglin considers in detail Arminius' approach first to the ontological ground of assurance (how the Christian is saved) and then to the epistemological ground of assurance (how the Christian knows that she is saved). Stanglin argues that Arminius was at one with his colleagues in underlining the priority of grace in salvation, in teaching that justification is by faith, and even in describing what the a posteriori grounds for assurance might be. The illustration of Arminius' broad sympathy with Reformed soteriology enables Stanglin to locate the real differences between Arminius and his Leiden colleagues. He identifies one as Arminius' commitment to a conditional understanding of predestination, to the resistibility of grace, and the concomitant Molinist understanding of divine knowledge. Stanglin also argues that, whereas most of the Leiden faculty were concerned that assurance might be corrupted by despair, Arminius was equally concerned that assurance could be corrupted by a careless security about salvation. Stanglin shows that, contrary to the accusations of his critics, Arminius did not seek to undermine assurance. On the contrary, he saw assurance as the index of a healthy theology of grace, and felt that his Leiden colleagues' commitment to a supralapsarian view of predestination was more likely to provoke either despair or careless security than his own approach. For Arminius, it was the love of God, rather than the irresistible will of God, that was the true foundation of Christian assurance. In brief, Stanglin's study is crisp, sympathetic, close to the primary texts and highly convincing.